The Fate of the State

[First Crusader]

Martin van Creveld is THE leading expert on politics and warfare. Writing at the Jerusalem University, he has produced dozens of books dicussing a wide variety of topics concerning war and the politics surrounding it.

Possibly his greatest work, "The Rise and Decline of the State", describes the evolution of government throughout history up to the modern era. He believes that the state as we know it has passed its zenith of power and is slowly declining, eventually to be vanquished by a new institution.

I am still reading "The Rise and Decline of the State". Here is an interesting article written by Creveld concerning the same topic.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...ng/creveld.htm

I would be interested to know what you guys think. He has made a big splash in the intellectual world and is widely dicussed.

[Erik]

You sound very impressed by him, but

Martin van Creveld is THE leading expert on politics and warfare.

says who?

I do recommend the article, but to say he is the #1 leading expert good way too far for me. (I don't know who IS the #1 leading expert, but I'm sure he has a longer wiki-page, lol).

[First Crusader]

You have a point. Let me rephrase.

He is one of the leading experts on politics on warfare.

You are right, we won't know for sure for a while at least.

[Guderian]

Haven't read the article yet but irc this guy is abit eccentric. But he is good in that he get's to the point without pussyfooting around.

I'll post what i think after i read it.

[First Crusader]

Yes, he is a little eccentric.

An ex-marine who writes a lot about modern warfare, William Lind, is brilliant, but is REALLY eccentric! You can find a lot of his stuff with an easy google search (type "fourth generation war"), so I won't bother posting links.

[Muizer]

Interesting article, though the scientific detachement with which he treats "The State" (as if it is some sort of autonomous entity) makes it very hard to translate this to the realm of ideology.

Muizer

[First Crusader]

Interesting article, though the scientific detachement with which he treats "The State" (as if it is some sort of autonomous entity) makes it very hard to translate this to the realm of ideology.

Muizer

In its current form, the state IS an autonomous entity. What do you mean by "the realm of ideology?

[Muizer]

In its current form, the state IS an autonomous entity.

What I mean is that because the article focuses on the fate of the state as a way to organize power, one would almost get the impression that it has a will of its own; that the state is like an autonomous entity trying to ensure its survival in a changing ideological, economical and technological environment. Ideologically, with the possible exception of anarchism, the state is considered as a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's like looking at the same thing in two different dimensions: it's possible to reconcile the two perspectives, but it isn't easy.

Muizer

[Bovril]

The state has existed for as long as their have been politically hierachical societies, and will persist for as long as there are politically hierachical societies. What this guy is talking about is one particular version of the modern nation state.

[Erik]

The state has existed for as long as their have been politically hierachical societies, and will persist for as long as there are politically hierachical societies. What this guy is talking about is one particular version of the modern nation state.

Yes, I think this causes a lot of confusion.
He talks about "THE State" as if there is only one.
But conspiracy theories aside (Is he Jewish, btw?) he should talk about "A States" or "SOME States".
I think he only talks about "THE State" because it sounds better.

[Muizer]

Yes, I think this causes a lot of confusion.
He talks about "THE State" as if there is only one.
But conspiracy theories aside (Is he Jewish, btw?) he should talk about "A States" or "SOME States".
I think he only talks about "THE State" because it sounds better.

Really? Well it seemed to me as if he was talking about the State as a way of institutionalizing power. He seems to suggest that the time when a centralized institution excercised power over a spatially defined territory (the state) is nearing its end. The alternative he suggests is most certainly not anarchism, but a re-distribution of power to organisations that do not excercise it over a specific territory, but over sections of society irrespective of place, as is the case to some extent for international fundamentalism and organized crime.

Muizer

[Bovril]

He's basically a libertarian who has created a historical fiction about what 'states' are in order to make his position viable. What he calls states in his historical rather than speculative discusion are not what reasonable people without an agenda call states.

[First Crusader]

He's basically a libertarian who has created a historical fiction about what 'states' are in order to make his position viable. What he calls states in his historical rather than speculative discusion are not what reasonable people without an agenda call states.

Oh come on. Give the paper some REAL critizism.

What he defines as a state is widely accepted in intellectual circles.

Erik, "the state" is a frequently used intellectual convention. So you might as well get used to it if you plan to read a lot about the subject.

[Bovril]

Oh come on. Give the paper some REAL critizism.
What he defines as a state is widely accepted in intellectual circles.

What he calls the state is usually called the nation state in intellectual circles and should be qualified with the terms modern. The paper is slightly out of date, and allready we are seeing the paucity of his model. The EU is drifiting towards and not away from statehood. It will not be a nation state, but if it continues in its current course it will still be a state none the less. The United Nations is losing rather than gaining influence, and has never really had much significance as anything more than a forum for the usual diplomatic discussion between states to take place. It could hardly be said that the US and Iran, both UN members, were moving towards a common form of non-state based institutional structure. In fact the role of the UN in the dispute between the US and Iran and Iraq is particularly informative when it comes to a critical reading of this essay.

Are those criticisms "REAL" enough for you.

[First Crusader]

What he calls the state is usually called the nation state in intellectual circles and should be qualified with the terms modern. The paper is slightly out of date, and allready we are seeing the paucity of his model. The EU is drifiting towards and not away from statehood. It will not be a nation state, but if it continues in its current course it will still be a state none the less. The United Nations is losing rather than gaining influence, and has never really had much significance as anything more than a forum for the usual diplomatic discussion between states to take place. It could hardly be said that the US and Iran, both UN members, were moving towards a common form of non-state based institutional structure. In fact the role of the UN in the dispute between the US and Iran and Iraq is particularly informative when it comes to a critical reading of this essay.

Are those criticisms "REAL" enough for you.

He acknowledged the existence of the EU in the first section, assuming you actually read the article (I am still working on it). The third world is being affected by this phenomoneau, which makes sense, as these nations are weaker and are going to be the first to fall apart, if he is correct.